MMoil vs TCw3

Status
Not open for further replies.
StevieC,
I posted some stuff ages ago (can't easily find it from where I sit ATM), on the inclusion of friction modifiers in fuel, and a reduction in cylinder wear, plus evidence of transport of these compounds into the oil surrounding the ring belt and ultimately the bulk.

During the intake and compression stroke, fuel is absorbed into the cylinder wall residual oil film, and evaporated back out on the power and exhaust strokes...it's one of the reasons that HC emissions are unavoidable.

So yes, while it is an inefficient delivery system, I believe from prior reading that some FMs from two stroke added fuel, plus some of the oil will make it to the oil film in the upper cylinder region.
 
The reason why TC-W3 works so well is not specifically and exclusively because of the oil. It is the other components in the TC-W3 formula that are really the most beneficial, which is why the cheaper dino TC-W3 works just as well as the more expensive synthetics.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Shannow
StevieC,
I posted some stuff ages ago (can't easily find it from where I sit ATM), on the inclusion of friction modifiers in fuel, and a reduction in cylinder wear, plus evidence of transport of these compounds into the oil surrounding the ring belt and ultimately the bulk.

During the intake and compression stroke, fuel is absorbed into the cylinder wall residual oil film, and evaporated back out on the power and exhaust strokes...it's one of the reasons that HC emissions are unavoidable.

So yes, while it is an inefficient delivery system, I believe from prior reading that some FMs from two stroke added fuel, plus some of the oil will make it to the oil film in the upper cylinder region.

Thank you.
 
Originally Posted by wag123
The reason why TC-W3 works so well is not specifically and exclusively because of the oil..

And it can't be because let's say for the 4-cycle case you add 5 oz. of TC-W3 to 20 gallons of Gas (Petrol) just to be liberal; 2560 oz/5 oz = a ratio of 512:1 or 512 ounces of gasoline per 1 ounce of TC-W3. (or as a check, multiply 5X512 =~ 2560 ounces of fuel per 20 gallons).

Let's look at a recommended 50:1 ratio for 2-cycle oil; 1 gal or 128 ounces of fuel/2.6 ounces of 2-cycle oil = 128/2.6 = 49.xx or a ratio of 50:1, or 50 ounces of gasoline per 1 oz. of 2-cycle oil. (or as a check, multiply 2.6X49.xx =~ 128 ounces of fuel per gallon).

I.e, The volume of oil in a 2-cycle engine is 10.24 X the volume of oil in a 20 gal tank of automotive fuel.

Let's go one step further: for the 2-cycle situation, there are approx. 2.61 X 10^25 molecules of oil per charge; For the 4-cycle situation as above, there are only 5.322X10^23 molecules of oil per charge. That's two orders of magnitude more molecules for the 2-cycle case than for the 4-cycle case.
Two orders of magnitude is a whopping increase.

Originally Posted by wag123
It is the other components in the TC-W3 formula that are really the most beneficial, which is why the cheaper dino TC-W3 works just as well as the more expensive synthetics.


Please tell us what the chemical components are in TC-W3 and what is the target of each component? I.e, what does each chemical component do for what mechanical component or process?

Besides, a real synthetic 2-cycle oil has different components that do mineral oil TC-W3's.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by dblshock
640:1 TCW-3 on this '07 500 Rubicon since day 1

[Linked Image]



needless to say I run it in all my 4T engines.
 
  • Like
Reactions: a5m
Originally Posted by StevieC
Thank you.


No probs...still trying to find the presentation format...but heres an SAE paper (no, I haven't bought the paper, so am posting the precis).

https://www.sae.org/publications/technical-papers/content/2001-01-1961/

Quote
Economic and political factors continue to put pressure on the automotive industry to reduce fuel consumption in vehicles. To increase the fuel efficiency of an engine, engine oil formulations have trended towards lower viscosity and the use of friction modifiers. To improve fuel economy further, the fuel itself can be used to deliver friction modifiers to the piston ring-cylinder wall interface, a location where friction is high and the oil quantity is purposely kept low.
This paper describes the use of the Sequence VI, VI-A, and VI-B lubricant fuel economy tests to demonstrate the fuel consumption improvement from a gasoline friction modifier fuel additive. To capitalize on the dynamometer results, vehicle tests were conducted using several test cycles, engine oils of different viscosity grades and containing a friction modifier, various gasoline friction modifier fuel additive treat rates, and to predict the effect of long term use.
The benefit of the gasoline friction modifier fuel additive was generally found at the higher oil temperature conditions. The fuel economy change was immediately measurable and further gains were seen as the friction modifier fuel additive accumulated in the engine oil and reduced friction in oil-wetted parts of the engine. The use of friction modifiers in engine oil formulations did not negate the fuel additive benefit. This program has shown that using the fuel to supply a friction modifier is a practical method to improve vehicle fuel economy.
 
Originally Posted by Shannow
StevieC,
I posted some stuff ages ago (can't easily find it from where I sit ATM), on the inclusion of friction modifiers in fuel, and a reduction in cylinder wear, plus evidence of transport of these compounds into the oil surrounding the ring belt and ultimately the bulk.

During the intake and compression stroke, fuel is absorbed into the cylinder wall residual oil film, and evaporated back out on the power and exhaust strokes...it's one of the reasons that HC emissions are unavoidable.

So yes, while it is an inefficient delivery system, I believe from prior reading that some FMs from two stroke added fuel, plus some of the oil will make it to the oil film in the upper cylinder region.


Interesting, thanks for posting.
 
Molakule - I'm using synthetic TC-W3 at the moment - Amsoil HP Marine Injector and it calls for a 50:1 ratio.
I'm seeing benefits from it I can't explain and I'm interested to do a UOA to compare it to a UOA without to see if the same results are seen as I saw with my Santa Fe using Lucas.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by MolaKule

Please tell us what the chemical components are in TC-W3 and what is the target of each component? I.e, what does each chemical component do for what mechanical component or process?

Friction modifiers, deposit control additives (specifically targeted at reducing carbon deposits), and detergent additives (specifically targeted at removing existing deposits and preventing ring sticking). TC-W3 2-cycle oil consists of about 60% oil and 40% additives.
TC-W3 is a certification that specifies test results, not oil formulation. The actual chemical additives used by each oil company to achieve the certification have not been specified anywhere that I can find. I did find an article that listed the names of two additives, CarbX and PIB. I found another article stating that zinc and phosphorus (ZDDP) are NOT used as friction modifiers in TC-W3. I found yet another article that talked about how synthetic 2-cycle oil was not as good as dino 2-cycle oil in regards to protecting against internal engine corrosion in 2-cycle engines, this is not relevant to our discussion but it does explain why synthetic blend 2-cycle oils are so prevalent.
This SAE paper link posted by Shannow (https://www.sae.org/publications/technical-papers/content/2001-01-1961/) talks about using friction modifiers in fuel...
"To improve fuel economy, the fuel itself can be used to deliver friction modifiers to the piston ring-cylinder wall interface, a location where friction is high and the oil quantity is purposely kept low. The benefit of the gasoline friction modifier fuel additive was generally found at the higher oil temperature conditions (like temperatures found in a combustion chamber). The fuel economy change was immediately measurable and further gains were seen as the friction modifier fuel additive accumulated in the engine oil and reduced friction in oil-wetted parts of the engine. The use of friction modifiers in engine oil formulations did not negate the fuel additive benefit. This program has shown that using the fuel to supply a friction modifier is a practical method to improve vehicle fuel economy."
Personally, I'm pleased with the results that I'm getting, but I don't understand how the benefits that I and many others are experiencing can be possible on such a large mix ratio.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: a5m
Good information Wag and that is my observation as well. I can't explain it but it works for some reason at 500:1 in my application.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by wag123
Originally Posted by MolaKule

Please tell us what the chemical components are in TC-W3 and what is the target of each component? I.e, what does each chemical component do for what mechanical component or process?

Friction modifiers, deposit control additives (specifically targeted at reducing carbon deposits), and detergent additives (specifically targeted at removing existing deposits and preventing ring sticking).... TC-W3 2-cycle oil consists of about 60% oil and 40% additives...


What friction modifiers were (are) used in TC-W3 and the test conducted in the SAE paper? Since you and a number of people have read past the Abstract you (they) should be able to tell us.


Originally Posted by wag123
TC-W3 2-cycle oil consists of about 60% oil and 40% additives...


No, the mix of base oils average 85 to 90% with the remaining being additives ranging between 10-15%, depending on the formulation of the finished product.

Please tell us what base oils are used.



Originally Posted by wag123
...I found another article stating that zinc and phosphorus (ZDDP) are NOT used as friction modifiers in TC-W3...


That's because ZDDP is an Anti-Wear/Anti-Oxidant agent.


Originally Posted by wag123
I found yet another article that talked about how synthetic 2-cycle oil was not as good as dino 2-cycle oil in regards to protecting against internal engine corrosion in 2-cycle engines, this is not relevant to our discussion but it does explain why synthetic blend 2-cycle oils are so prevalent.



NMMA TC-W3 is a specification for two cycle water-cooled, third generation engines. TC-W3 obsoletes TC-W & TC-WII. Oils with this spec do not use metal based additives, and are ashless. This is an outboard specific spec.
 
Last edited:
I have been adding TCW3 rated 2 cycle oil to my fuel in an S-series DOHC since 2012.
All subsequent emission reports were dramatically improved versus prior.
 
Originally Posted by MolaKule
Originally Posted by wag123
Originally Posted by MolaKule

Please tell us what the chemical components are in TC-W3 and what is the target of each component? I.e, what does each chemical component do for what mechanical component or process?

Friction modifiers, deposit control additives (specifically targeted at reducing carbon deposits), and detergent additives (specifically targeted at removing existing deposits and preventing ring sticking).... TC-W3 2-cycle oil consists of about 60% oil and 40% additives...


What friction modifiers were (are) used in TC-W3 and the test conducted in the SAE paper? Since you and a number of people have read past the Abstract you (they) should be able to tell us.


Dunno...as an expierenced formluator, could you fill us in on industry experience, as there's more than one paper on it.

What ARE the differences in the fuel delivered Friction modifiers in the papers, and the fuel delivered ashless friction modifiers in TCW3 ?

If we are all on the wrong page, it should be relatively easy to show us exactly where, and make us all feel silly...rather than the alternative.

(Wonder if there's a Project Farm documentary on it ???)
 
  • Like
Reactions: a5m
Originally Posted by Shannow
Originally Posted by MolaKule
[

What friction modifiers were (are) used in TC-W3 and the test conducted in the SAE paper? Since you and a number of people have read past the Abstract you (they) should be able to tell us.


Dunno...as an expierenced formluator, could you fill us in on industry experience, as there's more than one paper on it.

What ARE the differences in the fuel delivered Friction modifiers in the papers, and the fuel delivered ashless friction modifiers in TCW3 ?



I think you originally presented the two links, one to the SAE paper, so I thought you would have read the SAE paper.

In the SAE paper one of the oils, an SJ oil with a Group III base oil, and already
Originally Posted by 2001-01-1961
contained ~700 PPM Mo) of a molybdenum dithiocarbamate friction modifier.
and showed 0.19% fuel improvement with the fuel friction modifier at a high dosage.

No one can truthfully say that with such a high a level of molybdenum dithiocarbamate Friction Modifier in the engine oil one can differentiate friction reduction attributed to the fuel additive.

In TC oils, the majority of components are Multi-Functional Friction Modifiers/AW's where most of the friction modifier/AW's are one or more polyisobutylenes of various molecular weights. Older formulas used brightstock but brightstock leaves a host of deposits and residues.

In synthetic TC-W3 oils, the Multi-Functional Friction Modifiers/AW's are a combination of polyisobutylenes of various molecular weights and POE's of Trimethylol Propane (TMP) esters. The TMP esters may also do some cleaning of the combustion system while in aerosol form.

In ancient TC formulas, a Stoddard solvent had to be added in order to get the brightstock and other heavy oils (Group I and II 30 grade oils) to go into solution, but TMP esters now take care of solubility issues.

Base oils may be Group III oils, and or some PAO's, but are minority components.

The additives are: a polyisobutenyl (ashless) succinimide dispersant, a phosphorylated Borate (another AW/Anti-scuff agent), and a combustion enhancer of either a sulphurized oxymolybdenum dialkyl-dithiophosphate or a Titanium-compound.



Now, please tell us what fuel friction modifier was used in the SAE paper.
smile.gif
 
Last edited:
I was posting that, as I have provided in the "technical" section before, that friction modifiers can be delivered to the ring belt, and be incorporated in the bulk oil...so I'm not so keen as some to discount the TCW3 in the gas/diesel tank as providing benefits in the upper cylinder lube.

This, I added to the discussion, along with SAE papers and others that suggest that FMs CAN be delivered to the upper cylinder area through the fuel, and have also stated that the delivery mechanism appears somewhat inefficient.

To request that I name the particular compound in a paper that I've already stated I haven't got is akin to asking me to name the starving children in Africa, or they don't exist...a diversionary process.

So do you disbelieve that FMs can be delivered to the upper cylinder area via fuel ?

Or do you, as the industry expert in this thread have information that the FMs in Two stroke oil, which ARE designed to be delivered via the fuel are materially different to those studied ?
 
  • Like
Reactions: a5m
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

SOUNDMAN5000
Thoughts on Using Sta-bil and Marvel Mystery Oil In EVERY tank of gas?
Replies
19
Views
697
SOUNDMAN5000
R
Tiki Torch Fuel $1/gallon
Replies
2
Views
1K
Rmay635703
B
Fuel Stabilizer in car not driven much
Replies
18
Views
2K
CharBaby
A
cheapest 91 octane + techron bottle vs 91 octane from top tier station for regular fills?
Replies
19
Views
2K
Titan
T
Gas station tank black inside?
Replies
10
Views
1K
Nessism1
Back
Top Bottom